22 Jul
If the government is really serious about green energy wouldn’t it make sense to subsidize solar power?
By this I mean subsidize for citizens. What would the effect of making funds available to homeowners to add solar power to their houses have.
It would reduce emissions.
It would increase power production.
It would spur new innovations in technology.
It would create new business and jobs required to meet demand in the marketplace.
This money would not have to be handouts, but rather could take the form of government insured loans and tax incentives. The tax incentives and yearly energy cost savings would help the average family repay the loans.
Thoughts?
Ed J: I am familiar with what is in the stimulus bill and it is very limited in this area and nowhere near the type of investment I am talking about. It simply provides tax break for those who install solar appliances.
how_would_I_know: the technology is improving all the time in this area. No one says that solar is the complete answer. Massive investment in solar based on sales would lead to improvements in collection effeciency though. As for wind power. This is not a realistic idea for the average home based on the size and noise factors involved.
bkc99xx: You don’t get it. You are going to subsidize this research regardless. Obama is planning a massive expansion of green energy programs in his new budget, but rather than providing you with an avenue to help defer costs (i.e. home generated solar which can be returned to the grid and must be bought from the producer at premium kiowatt per hour rate) his plan will dramatically increase your monthly costs for energy with no plan for offset in cost.
bkc99xx: I said subsidies, but this is not really the correct word except in the case of tax breaks. The money would actually be in the form of secured loans. Yes I do know how much the cost of the system installation would be in my case. Roughly 15000 dollars and I have estimated that it would take roughly 15 years for the system to begin to produce a surplus financially. However this estimate is based on current kilowatt per hour rates in my area. The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that this cost will increase over the lifetime of the system making it more cost effective with time even when you factor in proposed maintenance costs.
Interesting answers which I enjoyed reading. I am going to send this question to a vote. Thanks to all for taking the time.
Posted by Rick on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
Tax Credits will be extended under so called ’stimulus plan’ - but will it be ‘cost effective’?
Wind, Solar Tax Credits Extended in $700 Billion Bail-Out
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-03-02.asp
Tax Credits would be the most efficient way to add to our economy - rather than another More obtrusive government Bureaucracy.
Interesting - Don’t you think?
Feinstein seeks block solar power from desert land
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h7aY31elSSpEWsXL0RHmqIowB3rgD972CNG00
There are Already Several Solar Farms in that area = Is Feinstein going for Corruption Money to grant them land usage, like she did giving her ’significant other’ government contracts from her committee??!??
Posted by Ed J on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
Yes it would, and part of the stimulus program addresses that very topic.
Posted by Bobbi on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
Back after Carter, they were tons of tax credits for solar on your home or business. Of course, they were eventually eliminated. Now, the government wants to subsidize a solar farm in the desert no where near any existing infrastructure. This will keep the cost of solar high, and possibly pollute the delicate ecosystem. Instead, you are right. If businesses and homeowners got credits for installing solar, and tapped into existing infrastructure, we would all be better off. There are businesses that use ‘canopy’ style solar panels. These not only help power the business, but also offer shade for the employees cars. Some businesses even installed solar panels to offer ‘re-fueling’ stations for their employees electric cars. It is like politicians think only big business can help the ‘little guy’.
Posted by how_would_I_know on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
The technology to harnass solar power is still very inefficient. If you want something practical, you need to go with wind power.
Posted by bkc99xx on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
The problem I have with solar in this application is mainly based on the economy of scale. Whether you like nuclear or coal, and regardless of how "dumb" the experts say our transmission system is, the cost of power is still relatively cheap per customer served. Instead of giving every person that wants to try some solar power literally multiple hundreds or even thousands of dollars per customer, that money combined can do much better work for us on a larger scale.
Solar still does not pay back in any reasonable period of time for the majority of cases. Sure, certain situations can be found and put on display, but the average person’s usage and parameters will be far from ideal. Also, simply the variation in availability and power between the states (Arizona versus Maine) will create inequalities in addressing who should get and how much it is worth. Engineered designs for specific applications should be evaluated for where solar can actually produce power that makes sense.
In other words, if you want to experiment with solar at your house, then I am fine with that. I simply don’t think that others should have to subsidize your research.
ADDED: No, I don’t think it is an issue of whether I get it or not. You indicate that we will be subidizing the solar plans already as if I am ok with that, but not ok with additional solar credits for homeowners. I am against both. Yes, it will take a while, but I would rather have solar build itself up on its own merits than to artificially prop it up and then have it crash when it doesn’t develop efficiently enough or when another competing clean power source becomes viable.
As far as the actual installations, do you realize just how much an actual solar system costs to install? Do you realize that if you install a 10 kw system that the average output will not be 100 kwh per day (10kw * 10 hours of average light capable of generating electricity)? It will be more like 20 - 25 kWh per day. That means about 600-700kwh per month, or $60 a month at 10 cents a kwh. Just how many thousands of dollars are you willing to pay to save $60 a month? When the payback is over 10 years, then the decision to use that system is no longer an economic decision alone (because replacement and maintenance costs have to be considered). So, if someone has additional reasons to justify investing their money in an otherwise poor investment, I say let them. I just don’t think it should be subsidized.
The link below takes you to the TVA website where they have installed several pv sites and contains a lot of data concerning the usage and efficiency. It is a shame that you can’t get a total by year of the energy produced. Most of these sites are very large and would not work well for residential as they are between 15kw and 27kw total capacity.
Posted by bladesinger0712 on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
No, not really to be honest I am so tired to the government subsidizing things. If the government was really serious about “going Green” they would simply divert funds from lets say Planned Parenthood or some other social program the government has no business in and re-invest those federal funds into Studies and experiments into these alternative powers. Although privet citizens always do the best work and research so maybe they could just cut federal income taxes by 60% so we can all invest our money into viable programs or scientist etc… we think are doing some good this subject and others, For the people by the people.
The Federal Government is an out of control power hungry machine and I would like to see them divested. If the Federal Government wants to be serious about “going green” then they would invest in us and believe in the people not regulate, raise taxes, bribe –subsidize and all this other jazz.
Posted by sprott88 on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
There are a lot of subsidies and grants available now. Many, many local governments are making time in government sessions to implement grant programs. Large oil companies such as Exon Mobil has made massive investments in solar energy, it is the wave of the future. Below is an article I found that you might find interesting, good luck!
Posted by roderick_young on 22.07.09 at 2:37 pm
The tax break for installing solar panels is already significant, if you ask me. It’s 30% of the installed cost, which is similar in magnitude to what California gave previously. And California has been successful at attracting over 100,000 installs. But now, the rest of the country can get that kind of price, and installation labor may even be cheaper, elsewhere. The only things holding back the rest of the country are the recession, and lower electricity prices.
My neighbor’s brother a few blocks away got 4kW of solar installed for $12,000 net, so prices have indeed come down.
In parts of the country, the solar equation already represents a financial savings, albeit over time. To me, that represents a cost savings. In the countries such as Germany that have guaranteed feed-in tarriffs, that’s where electricity for everybody else gets more expensive.